RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The American Obsession With Socialism Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56818"><span class="small">Heather Cox Richardson, Heather Cox Richardson's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Thursday, 29 October 2020 12:30

Richardson writes: "During her interview with the vice-presidential candidate on CBS's 60 Minutes on Sunday, journalist Norah O’Donnell asked Senator Kamala Harris if she would bring a 'socialist or progressive perspective' to the White House. Harris burst out laughing before she said 'no.'"

Former vice president Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Kamala Harris prior to the start of a June 27 debate among Democratic presidential candidates. (photo: Wilfredo Lee/AP)
Former vice president Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Kamala Harris prior to the start of a June 27 debate among Democratic presidential candidates. (photo: Wilfredo Lee/AP)


The American Obsession With Socialism

By Heather Cox Richardson, Heather Cox Richardson's Facebook Page

29 October 20

 

uring her interview with the vice-presidential candidate on CBS’s 60 Minutes on Sunday, journalist Norah O’Donnell asked Senator Kamala Harris if she would bring a “socialist or progressive perspective” to the White House. Harris burst out laughing before she said “no.”

Harris’s response has been viewed more than a million times on social media. One person responded “she doesn’t even know she’s into Marxism = socialism = communism.”

Trump and his campaign surrogates, as well as Republican lawmakers, continue to refer to Democrats as “socialists.” In Florida on Friday, Trump said: "We're not supposed to have a socialist—look we're not going to be a socialist nation. We're not going to have a socialist president, especially a female socialist president, we're not gonna have it, we're not gonna put up with it."

Today, in Lansing, Michigan, Trump warned about the elevation of Harris to the presidency, saying that “Joe’s shot; Kamala, you ready?... She makes Bernie Sanders look like a serious conservative.” Trump seems to be using the term “shot” as the old slang word for “worn out,” but there is no doubt he understands the dual meaning in that word, and is warning that Harris, should she be required to succeed Biden, will be a left-wing radical.

The American obsession with socialism has virtually nothing to do with actual international socialism, which developed in the early twentieth century. International socialism is based on the ideas of political theorist Karl Marx, who believed that, as the working class was crushed under the wealthy during late stage capitalism, it would rise up to take control of the factories, farms, utilities, and so on, taking over the means of production.

That theory has never been popular in America. While we have had a few socialist mayors, the best a socialist candidate has ever done in an election was when Eugene V. Debs won about 6% of the popular vote in 1912. Even then, while Debs called himself a socialist, it is not clear he was advocating the national takeover of industry so much as calling for the government to work for ordinary Americans, rather than the very wealthy, in a time that looked much like our own.

American “socialism” is a very different thing than what Marx was describing in his theoretical works. Fear of it erupted in the 1870s, long before the rise of international socialism, and it grew out of the peculiar American context of the years after the Civil War. During the war, Republicans had both invented national taxation—including the income tax—and welcomed African American men to the ballot box. This meant that, after the Civil War, for the first time in American history, voting had a direct impact on people’s pocketbooks.

After the war, southern Democrats organized as the Ku Klux Klan to try to stop Black Americans from taking their rightful place in society. They assaulted, raped, and murdered their Black neighbors to keep them from voting. But President Ulysses S. Grant met domestic terrorism with federal authority, established the Department of Justice, and arrested Klan members, driving their movement underground.

So reactionary whites took a different tack. The same people who had bitterly and publicly complained about Black Americans participating in society as equal to whites began to argue that their problem with Black voting was not about race, but rather about class. They said that they objected to poor voters being able to elect leaders who promised to deliver services or public improvements, like schools and roads, that could be paid for only by taxes, levied on property holders.

In the South of the post-Civil War years, almost all property holders were white. They argued that Black voting amounted to a redistribution of wealth from hardworking white men to poor Black people. It was, they insisted, “socialism,” or, after workers in Paris created a Commune in 1871, “communism.”

This is the origin of the American obsession with “socialism,” more than 40 years before Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution.

Since that time, Americans have cried “socialism” whenever ordinary Americans try to use the government to level the economic playing field by calling for business regulation—which will cost tax dollars by requiring bureaucrats—or for schools and roads, or by asking for a basic social safety net. But the public funding of roads and education and health care is not the same thing as government taking over the means of production. Rather, it is an attempt to prevent a small oligarchy from using the government to gather power to themselves, cutting off the access of ordinary Americans to resources, a chance to rise, and, ultimately, to equality before the law.

It is striking that O’Donnell felt it appropriate to ask Harris if she is a socialist—and lots of people apparently think that’s a legitimate question—while no one seems to be asking Trump, who is currently in power, if he’s a fascist.

Fascism is a far-right political ideology born in the early twentieth century. At its heart is the idea of a strong nation, whose people are welded into a unit by militarism abroad and the suppression of opposition at home. While socialism starts from the premise that all members of society are equal, fascists believe that that some people are better than others, and those elites should direct all aspects of society. To promote efficiency, fascists believe, business and government should work together to direct production and labor. To make people loyal to the state, fascists promote the idea of a domestic enemy that threatens the country and which therefore must be vanquished to make the nation great. The idea of a hierarchy of men leads to the defense of a dictatorial leader who comes to embody the nation.

Trump has certainly rallied far-right thugs to his side. At his first debate with Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, he told the far-right Proud Boys to “stand by,” and last week a study warned that five U.S. states are at risk for election-related armed violence by right-wing terrorists who have already threatened elected officials.

Today, Trump repeatedly attacked Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer at his rally in Lansing. Whitmer was a target of right-wing extremists who plotted to kidnap her and put her on trial for “treason,” and she has asked him repeatedly to stop riling up his followers against her. He has also weaponized government police for his own ends, sending them into the streets to bash peaceful protesters in a campaign he insists, in an echo of fascist leaders, will produce “law and order.”

He has certainly behaved as if some Americans are better than others, telling us that we simply must accept more than 225,000 deaths from coronavirus even as we know that those deaths disproportionately hit the elderly and Black and Brown Americans. Over the past week, the U.S has reported more than 500,000 new cases—a record—while Trump claimed credit today for “ENDING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.” He uses images of himself as a strongman, insists he has handled his job perfectly, and increasingly uses our public property as props for dramatic videos and photoshoots.

He is purging the public service of career officials and replacing them with loyalists. Recently, he issued an Executive Order stripping public servants of their civil service protections so he can fire those who are insufficiently loyal and fill their posts with cronies. Last night, his hand-picked head of Voice of America, Michael Pack, scrapped a federal regulation giving editorial freedom to the U.S. media outlets under the VOA umbrella. Pack wants editorial control, to turn the public outlet into a mouthpiece for Trump. Former VOA director Amanda Bennett told NPR she was “stunned” at his actions, which remove “the one thing that makes Voice of America distinct from broadcasters of repressive regimes.”

He has set up Muslims and immigrants as scapegoats, and has increasingly threatened Democrats, saying they should not be allowed to win the upcoming election, an election he has threatened to ignore unless he wins.

It’s a frightening list, no?

But for all that, Trump is an aspiring oligarch, rather than a fascist. He has no driving ideology except money and sees the country as a piggy bank rather than as a juggernaut for national greatness. Still, that his drive for power comes from a different place than fascism makes it no less dangerous to our democracy.

Over the next few years, we are going to have to have hard conversations about the role of government in society. Those conversations will not be possible if any Democratic policy to regulate runaway capitalism is met with howls of "socialism" while Republican policies that increasingly concentrate power in a small group of Americans are not challenged for the dangerous ideologies they mimic.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Facing Gap in Pennsylvania, Trump Camp Tries to Make Voting Harder Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56817"><span class="small">Nick Corasaniti and Danny Hakim, The New York Times</span></a>   
Thursday, 29 October 2020 12:29

Excerpt: "President Trump's campaign in the crucial battleground of Pennsylvania is pursuing a three-pronged strategy that would effectively suppress mail-in votes in the state, moving to stop the processing of absentee votes before Election Day, pushing to limit how late mail-in ballots can be accepted and intimidating Pennsylvanians trying to vote early."

A ballot drop box outside the Bucks County Courthouse in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. (photo: Mark Makela/The New York Times)
A ballot drop box outside the Bucks County Courthouse in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. (photo: Mark Makela/The New York Times)


Facing Gap in Pennsylvania, Trump Camp Tries to Make Voting Harder

By Nick Corasaniti and Danny Hakim, The New York Times

29 October 20


Trailing in the polls, President Trump and his campaign are pursuing a three-pronged strategy that would effectively suppress the mail-in vote in the critical state of Pennsylvania.

resident Trump’s campaign in the crucial battleground of Pennsylvania is pursuing a three-pronged strategy that would effectively suppress mail-in votes in the state, moving to stop the processing of absentee votes before Election Day, pushing to limit how late mail-in ballots can be accepted and intimidating Pennsylvanians trying to vote early.

Election officials and Democrats in Pennsylvania say that the Trump effort is now in full swing after a monthslong push by the president’s campaign and Republican allies to undermine faith in the electoral process in a state seen as one of the election’s most pivotal, where Mr. Trump trails Joseph R. Biden Jr. by about six percentage points, according to The Upshot’s polling average.

Mail-in votes in Pennsylvania and other swing states are expected to skew heavily toward Democrats. The state is one of a handful in which, by law, mail-in votes cannot be counted until Election Day, and the Trump campaign has leaned on Republican allies who control the Legislature to prevent state election officials from bending those rules to accommodate a pandemic-driven avalanche of absentee ballots, as many other states have already done.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Don't Panic if You Missed the Mail-In Ballot Deadline. Here's How to Make Sure Your Vote Counts Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51527"><span class="small">Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone</span></a>   
Thursday, 29 October 2020 12:29

Dickinson writes: "The last day to confidently mail in an absentee ballot, in time to have it received by Election Day, November 3rd, has passed. (October 27th was the cutoff set by the Postal Service.) But don't panic."

A women inserts her ballot in a ballot drop box, Friday, Oct. 23, 2020, in Salt Lake City. (photo: Rick Bowmer/AP)
A women inserts her ballot in a ballot drop box, Friday, Oct. 23, 2020, in Salt Lake City. (photo: Rick Bowmer/AP)


ALSO SEE: Your Absentee Ballot Never Showed Up. Now What?

Don't Panic if You Missed the Mail-In Ballot Deadline. Here's How to Make Sure Your Vote Counts

By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone

29 October 20


You can still return your ballot in person. Here’s how to get your vote counted in key states across the 2020 battleground.

he last day to confidently mail in an absentee ballot, in time to have it received by Election Day, November 3rd, has passed. (October 27th was the cutoff set by the Postal Service.) But don’t panic. If you, like millions of Americans, still have a ballot in hand, you have easy options to make your ballot count. The details vary by location, so we’ve broken down what to do in major swing states.

It is true that a few swing states plan to count ballots as long as they are postmarked by election day. But it’s better to return your ballot by hand as soon as possible. Mailed ballots remain vulnerable to ongoing delivery delays by the Postal Service. And even before the addition of new, reactionary justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court was signaling that ballots arriving after November 3rd may be vulnerable to legal challenge.

PLEASE NOTE: The advice in this article is specifically for voters who have received a ballot in the mail and need to return it in person. If this doesn’t apply to you, make a plan to vote in person — either at an early-vote location, or on November 3rd at your usual polling place. To assess your best option, check out Vote.org.

Alaska

According to the division of elections, “voted ballots can be delivered to any Division of Elections office or any voting location” through election day. (Returning ballots by mail is still an option. Mailed ballots must be postmarked by Election Day and “received by the Division by November 13, 2020.”)

Arizona

According to the Citizens Clean Election Commission, a voted ballot can now be returned by “dropping it off at any voting location in your county [or] in any secured ballot drop box in your county.” Visit this map to find an appropriate ballot drop location. Deadline: ballots must be signed and received by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day.

Florida

According to the division of elections, voted ballots can be deposited in secure drop boxes, either at “main and branch offices” of the Supervisors of Elections or at “designated early voting sites” in your county. Locations, days, and hours of drop boxes can be found by following county-specific links here. Deadline: “A returned voted ballot must be received… no later than 7:00 p.m. (local time) on Election Day.”

Georgia

According to the secretary of state a voted ballot can be delivered in person to a “drop-off location in your county.” Available drop-off locations can be found by following county links here, or at gaballotdropbox.org, run by the state Democratic party. Ballots must be received “by the time of the closing of the polls on election night.”

Iowa

According to the secretary of state, voted absentee ballots must be delivered to the appropriate “county auditor’s office.” (Find your local auditor’s office here.) According to the ACLU of Iowa many county auditors “have set up ballot boxes in front of their building for contact-free drop-off.” Ballots must be received “before the polls close on Election Day.”

Maine

According to the secretary of state, absentee voters should “drop off your ballot in person or via an absentee ballot drop box at your municipal office (if available)” Ballots must be received “no later than 8 p.m. on Election Day.” (Find your local municipal office, look here.)

Minnesota

According to the secretary of state, you can return your ballot in person to “the election office that sent your ballot.” This must be done, “no later than 3 p.m. on Election Day to the election office that sent your ballot.” (Returning ballots by mail is still an option. Minnesota law allows ballots to be post-marked up until election day itself, as long as they are received by the appropriate county office by November 10th.)

Montana

Ballot instructions tell voters they can drop off a voted ballot “at your county election office.” Consult this document for information about your county election location. Deadline: ballots “must be RECEIVED at the election office by 8 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, 2020.”

New Hampshire

According to voting instructions for absentee ballots, “the voter may personally deliver it… to the clerk in the city or town in which you are entitled to vote.” (Unsure where that is? Here is a directory of town clerks.) Ballots must be “received by the town, city or ward clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day of the election.”

Michigan

The official Michigan Voter Information Center recommends “hand-delivering the ballot to your clerk’s office or their drop box,” warning that your “completed absentee ballot should be received by your city or township clerk by 8 p.m. on Election Day.” (You can find the address of your local clerk here.)

Nevada

According to the secretary of state, ballots can be returned in person at a ballot drop-off location “prior to 7:00 p.m. on November 3rd.” Every county has at least one ballot drop-off location, found here. (Returning ballots by mail is still an option. Nevada will count ballots post-marked on or before election day.)

Nebraska

Ballots can be returned to in person to county election offices and “must arrive at the county election official’s office by the closing of the polls on Election Day (8:00 pm Central Time / 7:00 pm Mountain Time),” according to the secretary of state.

North Carolina

North Carolina allows for voted ballots to be returned in person at “any early voting site in your county during voting hours” up until October 31st. After that, ballots must be returned to “your county board of elections office by 5 p.m.” on Election Day. (Returning ballots by mail is still an option. According to the state board of elections North Carolina will count ballots “postmarked on or before Election Day, and received by 5 p.m. November 12th.”)

Ohio

Ballots can be returned to your county board of elections (directory here) in person “no later than 7:30 pm on Election Day.” (Returning ballots by mail is still an option. Ohio allows for ballots to be counted as long as they are “postmarked no later than the day before Election Day and received by your county board of elections no later than 10 days after the election.”)

Pennsylvania

Voters can hand-deliver their ballots to a variety of locations, including county election offices, satellite offices, and (in some counties) secure drop boxes. The nonpartisan Pennsylvania Capital-Star offers a map of ballot drop locations in the state. Ballots must be received “before 8 pm on election day.” Remember to enclose your ballot in both the secrecy envelope and the return envelope. “Naked ballots” will be invalidated. (Returning ballots by mail is a dubious option. Under a state supreme court decision, Pennsylvania plans to count late-arriving ballots, but the conservatives in the U.S. Supreme Court are threatening to invalidate votes that arrive after election day.)

Texas

Voting in Texas is a challenge. By order of the Republican governor, now blessed by the Texas supreme court, voted ballots can only be returned in person at one facility in each county, regardless of whether that county is home to hundreds of Texans or millions. Voters dropping off their ballots must be prepared to show a valid ID. (Returning ballots by mail is still an option. Texas allows ballots to be counted with post marks as late as Election Day, although they must be received by election officials by November 4th.)

Wisconsin

The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled against counting ballots that arrive after Election Day in Wisconsin. State voter instructions for returning a ballot in person are as follows:

  • Drop it off at your municipal clerk’s office

  • Drop it off at your polling place or central count location

  • Drop it off in an absentee ballot drop box (if available)

Ballots must be received “no later than 8:00 pm on Election Day.”

And finally…

If you’re experiencing any confusion or difficulty in voting, you can reach out to the national, nonpartisan Election Protection coalition through 866ourvote.org.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
A Black Voting Rights Activist Confronts the Ghosts of Racial Terror in North Carolina Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56816"><span class="small">Sydney Trent, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Thursday, 29 October 2020 12:29

Trent writes: "Cynthia Brown woke at 5 a.m., more than an hour earlier than she had planned. She was bleary-eyed from lack of sleep, but her 65-year-old body was coursing with adrenaline."

Cynthia Brown visits Wilmington's Pine Forest Cemetery, where her great-grandmother hid during the 1898 massacre of African Americans during the country's only coup d'etat. (photo: Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)
Cynthia Brown visits Wilmington's Pine Forest Cemetery, where her great-grandmother hid during the 1898 massacre of African Americans during the country's only coup d'etat. (photo: Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)


A Black Voting Rights Activist Confronts the Ghosts of Racial Terror in North Carolina

By Sydney Trent, The Washington Post

29 October 20

 

ynthia Brown woke at 5 a.m., more than an hour earlier than she had planned. She was bleary-eyed from lack of sleep, but her 65-year-old body was coursing with adrenaline.

It was Oct. 15, the first day of early voting in a state considered pivotal in the presidential race, and Brown and her husband, Phil, were determined to show up in person, despite the pandemic. After she downed her coffee and got dressed, Brown slipped on a pair of brown loafers with embossed monarch butterflies — a symbol of the political transformation she so desired.

At 7:30, the couple headed out to join the record number of North Carolinians who have been voting early across the state. Many, like her, are African Americans who have long been the target of voter suppression efforts, from literacy tests during the Jim Crow era to the state’s 2013 passage of a strict voter ID law that was later struck down by a federal appeals court.

But 2020, Brown said, felt different.

“There was something about this election, all the talk of voter suppression, all the paranoia about mail-in ballots, that was driving me to be present,” she explained as she and her husband stood masked in a long line outside Cape Fear Community College’s north campus.

For the retired human resources professional, the election wasn’t just about the future; it was also about the past.

“I thought about my great-grandmother Athalia,” Brown said, “and what happened here.”

On Nov. 10, 1898, two days after a contentious election, Athalia Howe, the 12-year-old granddaughter of prominent Black builder Alfred Augustus Howe, had crouched fearfully in Wilmington’s Pine Forest Cemetery as armed white supremacists stormed the city. The mobs massacred dozens of African Americans — the true number will never be known — dumping their limp bodies in the winding Cape Fear River. They seized prosperous Black people and their White allies and forced them onto trains out of town. After publishing a “White Declaration of Independence,” the marauders took over the county Board of Aldermen — the only coup d’etat in U.S. history.

Wilmington’s African American community, a shining post-Civil War model of Black upward mobility, has never recovered.

Until relatively recently, the devastating events of 1898 were largely lost to history. In 2000, the state General Assembly appointed a special commission to investigate the violence, resulting in a 2006 report with recommendations for restorative justice, some of which have been heeded, others not. A separate push for reparations has not gone anywhere.

Meanwhile, waves of young, White and often liberal newcomers have been arriving in the beachside city, renovating charming period houses, filling trendy restaurants in the gentrified historic district and making New Hanover County harder for President Trump to win a second time.

About three-quarters of Wilmington’s nearly 125,000 residents are now White. Many of them, Brown said, know little or nothing about the racial terror unleashed in 1898.

“I’ve seen so many people come here and think it’s a fun-in-the-sun place, and they operate as though the playing field is level for everyone,” Brown said. “They drive by underprivileged neighborhoods, and it’s like, ‘Ho-hum.' … Not knowing the history can be destructive to a community. When people have no sense of the ground they are standing on, they just keep perpetuating what has already occurred.”

A far more recent act of violence — the killing of George Floyd by a White Minneapolis police officer — prompted Wilmington to confront some of its ghosts.

In July, a park named for 1898 co-conspirator Hugh MacRae was renamed Long Leaf Park. In August, the city voted to erect a Black Lives Matter mural, after weeks of contentious debate. In October, the Cape Fear Garden Club scrapped its Azalea Belles program in which young women paraded about in colorful antebellum hoop skirts reminiscent of White enslavers. And last week, Wilmington Mayor Bill Saffo, a White Democrat, kicked off a Rise Together initiative to address racial inequality.

Amid the change, three White Wilmington police officers were fired after they were inadvertently caught on video claiming that Black Lives Matter protests would spark another Civil War. “Wipe 'em off the f---ing map,” Officer Michael “Kevin” Piner said of African Americans. “That’ll put 'em back about four or five generations.”

All of this was on Brown‘s mind — the push for racial progress and the countervailing winds of White resistance — as she stood in line to vote at Cape Fear Community College.

Brown knew that before the massacre and coup in Wilmington, the White men who ran the Democratic Party — defenders of slavery before the Civil War and resisters of Reconstruction after it — had terrorized African Americans at the polls. The Democrats employed threats and intimidation to keep Black voters at home and stuffed ballot boxes to win elections. In 1897, Black men in North Carolina voted in large numbers, but in 1900, the state stripped most of the right to vote. The political violence in 1898 Wilmington is now considered by historians to have been an opening salvo for the even more viciously racist period known as Jim Crow.

More than 120 years later, Brown wondered whether she was witnessing a revival of that dark time. As the election approached, White extremists were accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan’s governor and of opening fire on Black Lives Matter protesters in Wisconsin. They’d celebrated Trump’s refusal to disavow them.

In late summer, a woman claiming to be from a voting rights group called Brown on her cellphone and offered to bring Brown an absentee ballot. When Brown asked where she was calling from and to state Brown’s address, the woman was tongue-tied. Brown hung up and called the county Board of Elections.

“This doesn’t sound right,” the employee said. Brown reported the incident to the state, then stepped up her election involvement. She distributed voter guides, gave out information about spotting and responding to voter suppression, and volunteered to serve as a county Board of Elections monitor.

Then, a few weeks ago, Brown went to visit the grave of her great-great-great-grandfather Alfred Howe at Pine Forest Cemetery. The base of the stately obelisk bearing Howe’s name had been sprayed with reddish brown paint. Brown stared at it, startled and incredulous, wondering who would do such a thing.

Not long before, Brown had read a story in the Wilmington Star-News that reported a steep rise in pistol purchase permits issued in New Hanover County — in August, more than six times the number granted in the same month last year. She shivered and thought of the run on guns and ammunition in the days before Nov. 10,1898.

Now Brown, a petite, emotive woman with wispy salt-and-pepper hair, was determined to do her part to keep time from rolling back. She adjusted her homemade cloth mask, and she and Phil moved forward slowly toward the door of the polling place.

The Secret Nine

Brown was about 8 years old when her mother took her to visit her great-grandmother Athalia, who was in failing health and living in Pennsylvania. As Brown and her brother stood by Athalia’s bedside, the old woman, drifting in and out of consciousness, suddenly grabbed Brown’s wrist.

“Don’t let it happen to you! Run!” Brown recalled Athalia screaming before her mother hurried the children out of the room.

Years later, when she was a young married woman living in Chicago and raising three children, her father would finally tell her about 1898 and make her promise to return to Wilmington to keep the family’s history from being forgotten.

Athalia’s father, William C. Howe, had left for work on the docks as a barrel maker on that chilly November morning. Athalia was home when she witnessed a Black neighbor on his way to work being shot to death by White men, Brown’s father told her. White men were running through the dirt streets, firing as they went.

Athalia and her mother and sister, along with other women and children, sprinted to the family’s church, St. Stephen AME, to seek refuge. But the White marauders had already positioned themselves in front of the heavy wooden doors.

The women and their children raced behind the massive brick church, east to the wooded Black cemetery. There, the family huddled together with nothing to eat for several days, while others found refuge in nearby swamps.

The massacre, the coup and the stealing of the state elections were part of a highly orchestrated white supremacist campaign led by powerful Democratic politicians and businessmen. A few years earlier in North Carolina, Abraham Lincoln’s integrated Republican Party had formed a coalition with the Populist Party founded by small White farmers who had suffered financial hardship. The partnership, known as “Fusion,” broke the hold of Democrats on the government, resulting in a sweep of statewide offices. Black male voters helped elect Fusion leader Daniel Russell as governor in 1896. In Wilmington, Fusionists took power.

The backlash from White Democrats was immediate. They began plotting to regain control of the government with the aim of removing Black men from public office and disenfranchising Black voters. They trained their sights on Wilmington, then the largest city in North Carolina and a flourishing port.

Wilmington had become a national symbol of Black success in the decades following the Civil War. African Americans, who were in the majority, owned 10 of the city’s 11 dining establishments and 20 of its 22 barbershops, according to Timothy B. Tyson, a Duke University historian and co-author of “Democracy Betrayed: The Wilmington Race Riot of 1898 and Its Legacy.” Black people worked for themselves as architects, lawyers and doctors, jewelers, watchmakers and tailors, often in the prosperous Northside neighborhood called Brooklyn. They worked as builders, like Brown’s great-great-great grandfather Alfred Howe, his elegant homes with their distinctive sloping French-style roofs gracing the streets of the city’s downtown.

Black men occupied three of 10 alderman seats after the Fusionists claimed power. The federal customs collector was Black; so were the county treasurer and the city’s jailer. The literacy rate among Black males in the city was higher than that of Whites.

One of the most educated Black men in town was Alex Manly, editor of the Daily Record, believed to be the only Black-owned newspaper in the United States at the time.

To stir up racist sentiment, North Carolina Democrats exploited White fears that Black men who became successful would sexually violate White women. One of the organizers, Josephus Daniels, then editor and publisher of the state’s dominant daily, the Raleigh News & Observer, eagerly harnessed his presses in the service of the white supremacist campaign.

Meanwhile, in Wilmington, a group known as the Secret Nine began planning an attack, organizing armed white supremacist groups, including the Democrats’ paramilitary arm known as the Red Shirts. They created lists of Black and White Fusionists to be killed or driven from town, according to Tyson.

Then, Manly provided the plotting Democrats with a spark.

In August 1898, White-owned newspapers in North Carolina began reprinting a year-old speech by a White woman from Georgia named Rebecca Felton. The speech implored White men “to lynch a thousand times a week, if necessary, to protect white women from black rapists.”

In Wilmington, Manly published a stinging rebuttal. “You set yourself down as a lot of carping hypocrites in that you cry aloud for the virtue of your women while you seek to destroy the morality of ours,” Manly wrote. “...Don’t think ever that your women will remain pure while you are debauching ours. You sow the seed — the harvest will come in due time.”

Manly a direct descendant of North Carolina’s White governor, Charles Manly, and an enslaved woman, braced for the fury, and it arrived, as Whites issued death threats and called for his lynching.

On Nov. 10, the White mobs set the Daily Record ablaze. By then, Manly and his staff had already fled. On that day and in the following months, more than 1,400 African Americans left the city and Wilmington’s Black middle class was decimated as the vise of Jim Crow tightened.

Brown’s great-grandmother Athalia and her family remained in Wilmington, while other Howes of more means fled. In the early 20th century, Athalia Howe worked as a cook on a grand estate owned by the family of Walter L. Parsley — a member of the Secret Nine.

'A lot of silence’

Geoff Ward, a distant cousin of Cynthia Brown’s, didn’t learn about his connection to 1898 until five years ago.

A history professor at Washington University in St. Louis, he was talking to an aunt about his work, which focuses on historical racial violence, trauma and redress.

“That’s what happened to us in Wilmington,” his aunt said. His mother’s side of the family — also direct descendants of Alfred Howe — had fled the city after 1898, he learned.

Ward, in his early 40s at the time, marveled that he had never heard about this racial trauma. But it also made sense to him.

“There’s a lot of silence around these histories,” Ward said. “For immediate descendants and survivors, there is undoubtedly a lot of pain and frustration. … But the silence of one generation means that the next generation will be silent without knowing it.”

History lives with us, even if we can’t or don’t acknowledge it, Ward said. He reflected on the parallels between 1898 and now: the determination by White people to maintain dominance as the country’s demographics shift, attempts to suppress the Black vote, the threat of armed violence.

He noted that in 1898, the entire state of North Carolina, including Republicans, chose not to intervene, “legitimizing racial terror.”

In the years after the coup, the White organizers acquired wealth and power. One became governor of North Carolina. Another was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Yet now, amid the country’s racial tumult, “there are people who are working against these tides,” Ward said, “to do the truth-telling and the bearing witness and the trust-building.”

One of them is Cynthia Brown, who moved back to Wilmington in 1993 to fulfill her promise to her father. She began researching the Howes’ history and became historian at St. Stephen AME, Athalia’s church. She watched as the streams of mostly White newcomers began changing the rhythms of her native city, without knowing what came before them. But some of the new arrivals gave her hope. They had bothered to learn history.

When White tech entrepreneur Joe Finley moved to the area from Chapel Hill in 2002, the racial inequalities unsettled him. “I could go out about my business in certain spaces and never see a Black person at all,” said Finley, co-founder of Castle Branch, a compliance management company.

The economic gulf is wide. At $27,733, the median Black household income in New Hanover County is less than half that of White households, according to 2018 Census data.

About five years ago, Finley watched “Wilmington on Fire,” a documentary about 1898 and learned of Wilmington’s long-ago history of Black entrepreneurship.

Finley, 51, is now trying to play a part in reviving it. He has invested in a start-up called Genesis Block, a minority-business-development services company founded by two young Black Wilmington-area natives.

He has also been encouraging Cedric Harrison, the 32-year-old founder and executive director of community nonprofit Support the Port, who grew up in a poor neighborhood near Brooklyn. Harrison wants to launch a tour company showcasing Wilmington’s post-Civil War African American community.

In a successful TEDx video pitch for a business development fellowship, Harrison dreamed aloud of reviving the city’s once-flourishing Black entrepreneurial class.

On a warm mid-October day, Harrison pulled up in the parking lot at the 1898 Monument and Memorial Park in Brooklyn and lumbered out of his teal 2008 Infiniti EX35. He was on a trial-run for his tour.

There on the brick path before the memorial‘s towering bronze oars stood “Miss Cynthia,” one of the “elders” whom he credits with helping him get the historic nuances right.

Brown, who gives tours with the Cape Fear Museum historian, set about explaining the memorial to a visitor. She gestured up at the oars, glinting in the bright sunlight across the highway from the Cape Fear River. The memorial‘s important visual link to the river, she pointed out, is now blocked by a new condominium building.

The designer of the memorial, Ayokunle Odeleye, used the paddles symbolically to refer to water, a medium in African spirituality for moving from this life to the next. The memorial, dedicated in 1998, was also meant to symbolize Wilmington’s journey to acknowledging the events of a century before.

While Brown said the memorial was “a first step toward getting the history of Wilmington on the radar,” she worries the city’s commitment is not fully there.

There is no annual event commemorating Nov. 10, no museum, she notes. The oars stay blackened with tarnish too long, she said, before the city thinks to shine them again. And the low gray walls that are part of the memorial are already cracking and crumbling.

Standing before the memorial, she thought aloud about her great-grandmother Athalia Howe, who was living just a few blocks away that Nov. 10 when she saw her neighbor gunned down. Who in Wilmington would remember Athalia’s story and the slaughter and the coup and the stolen dreams, she wondered, once she and the other guardians of that history were gone?

'Don’t worry’

After about an hour in line on Oct. 15, Brown finally entered the auditorium to vote at Cape Fear Community College. She checked in with the poll worker at a table near the wall and signed next to her name, then crossed over to another to pick up her white paper ballot. She walked over to the rows of blue polling stations, stopped at one near the exit door and began to ink in the circles of her choices.

As she marked her ballot, Brown said, she felt a surreal calm descend. She had done her duty. She was able to exercise the right to vote that her great-grandmother had suffered for.

She thought of it all — the push for racial progress and the attempts to roll it back.

“I had this very good feeling,” she said. Enough time had passed, enough had changed, there were more people trying. “Something told me: ‘Don’t worry. This is not 1898.’ ”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: A Short History of the Lesser Evil Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54565"><span class="small">Stephen Eric Bronner, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 29 October 2020 11:53

Bronner writes: "Trump: first against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and now against Joseph Biden - another bitter pill for the left to swallow. There are enough who throw up their hands in frustration."

Attendees await former vice president Joe Biden at a campaign event at Texas Southern University in Houston, March 2, 2020. (photo: Tamir Kalifa/The New York Times)
Attendees await former vice president Joe Biden at a campaign event at Texas Southern University in Houston, March 2, 2020. (photo: Tamir Kalifa/The New York Times)


A Short History of the Lesser Evil

By Stephen Eric Bronner, Reader Supported News

29 October 20

 

rump: first against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and now against Joseph Biden – another bitter pill for the left to swallow. There are enough who throw up their hands in frustration. Trump the neo-fascist vs. Biden the slightly-left-of-mainstream Democrat. The former vice president epitomizes the lesser of the evils. Biden’s domestic policies are not exactly robust, though they’re radically more egalitarian than those of the president, and he is indeed taking the left wing of the party for granted; the “undecided” voter is his target; and explicit calls for class politics are off-limits. Trump’s xenophobic vision of “America First” has offended Western allies and withdrawn the United States from international treaties pertaining to climate change and Iran, while sabotaging the UN and its agencies such as UNWRA, UNESCO, and others. As for Biden, his foreign policy mistakes were egregious even before he offered support for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Many will have their doubts when they cast their ballots.

Whether Trump beats Biden or not, moreover, the president’s semi-fascist base, between 35 and 40% of the country, is not going away. Rank careerists, cynical wise guys, and identity politicians in the Democratic Party who took industrial workers and the left for granted in 2016 paved the way for Trump’s electoral triumph – and the trauma is still with us. But those who did not vote or threw away their vote on a third party, rather than vote for Hillary Clinton, the “lesser evil,” didn’t help matters either.

Our “genius” president, as Trump calls himself, won the decisive states in the 2016 election by fewer votes than those given to the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. Of course, she never stood a chance of winning anything except admiration from the pure of heart, the self-righteous, and the self-centered, who could not possibly vote for the lesser of the two evils – as if elections were somehow created for those listening to the Sermon on the Mount.

There has never been an American election not based on the “lesser of the two evils.” Even the presidential campaigns of Franklin Delano Roosevelt were not for the pure of heart. Comparing him with either Hillary or Biden (let alone Eleanor with Melania) would be absurd. But FDR’s politics was not without flaws. He left Jim Crow basically untouched, tempered the more radical demands of strikers in Flint and elsewhere, and twisted traditional norms by running for four terms and trying to “pack” a reactionary Supreme Court (which might yet prove necessary should the Democrats win the presidency and the Senate in 2020). Regarding foreign policy, moreover, he privileged dictators over popular movements in Latin America, created an Office of Naval Intelligence, provoked Hitler with his lend-lease policies, placed a stultifying embargo on Japan, supported secret attacks on Japanese forces, and provoked Pearl Harbor.

All of this occurred while much of the pacifist and radical left embraced the slogan “Never Again War!” Roosevelt was also blamed for failing to end the Great Depression of 1929 by communists and other radicals who demanded “more” government intervention in the economy. Other than the fringes, however, those further to the left had the sense to vote for him. Had Roosevelt lost those elections, the New Deal would never have been passed, and the welfare state would have remained an object of opprobrium. What’s more, while the result might not have been as bad as the Nazi takeover envisioned in Phillip Roth’s Plot Against America, it would have been bad enough; Roosevelt’s defeat would surely have cost England the war.

There were far louder cries on the far left of “sell-out” during the presidential campaign between two former vice-presidents in 1968: Richard Nixon vs. Hubert Humphrey. That remains a particularly sensitive topic for my generation. Everyone despised Nixon, including his former boss, President Dwight D. Eisenhower. That was perhaps even more the case with Nixon’s now-disgraced and forgotten vice president, Spiro Agnew, the former Governor of Maryland, whose gangster-like greed and sheer stupidity somehow anticipate Trump. In any event, Nixon was completely upfront about his agenda. He called for increased military intervention with respect to the Vietnam War, which later resulted in the genocidal bombing of Cambodia. Nixon also employed the “Southern Strategy” to full effect by using racist tropes and opposing the civil rights movement. With the staunch assistance of Agnew, moreover, Nixon appealed to the “silent majority” and supported attacks on intellectuals and experts (let alone anti-war critics) as “nattering nabobs of negativity.” Indeed, this should all sound very familiar.

Vice President Hubert Humphrey was considered a war criminal by most of the left. He couldn’t rid himself of the stench emanating from his boss’s genocidal Vietnam policies. But he was clearly a better man than Nixon, who engaged in the crudest form of red-baiting in his defeat of Helen Gahagan Douglas – calling her “pink right down to her underwear” – in the California senatorial campaign of 1950. Humphrey bravely opposed the segregationist “Dixiecrats” at the Democratic Convention of 1948. A staunch supporter of civil liberties and civil rights, he was a critic of McCarthyism and an intrepid advocate of the “great society” programs, which today mark the flip side of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s legacy.

Humphrey was a reasonable and intelligent man who lacked the anti-intellectual biases and bigotry of his opponent. The great majority of the black community was behind him. Supporting Humphrey should have created no problem at all. And yet…. A leader in the fight for nuclear disarmament, there was simply no excusing his complicity in the Vietnam debacle, whatever his campaign promises to get the US out, just as there was no excuse for Hillary or Biden’s support of the Iraq war. Then too, the excitement created by Bobby Kennedy’s primary campaign against Johnson for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968 was matched by the profound grief generated by his assassination, and this was only enhanced by memories of his brother, JFK, and Martin Luther King, Jr. There were also the massive demonstrations in Washington DC, and the “days of rage” when “the whole world was watching” and Senator Abe Ribicoff angrily accused the Democratic mayor Richard Daley of using “Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago.”

In short, it was understandable why so many radicals and young people chose not to vote for Humphrey and the Democrats; I was one of them. But I was wrong. Nixon defeated Humphrey by less than 1% (though the crook comfortably won the electoral college) – and the Cambodian and Vietnamese people paid the price. Would it have been different had Humphrey won? I don’t know. Perhaps it would have been – but that “perhaps” was good enough reason to roll the dice and vote for the lesser evil. It would not have cost me a thing except my sense of moral superiority.

Sectarianism has always had a blind spot when it comes to drawing distinctions between political opponents and policies; it has always been either my way, my politics straight down the line, or the highway. The judgment is always self-referential: how do candidates relate to my needs? Never is it a matter of how one candidate or the other might make a difference for the disenfranchised and exploited. Once policy differences are taken into account, of course, the stakes change. Judgments are no longer simply subjective or narrowly moral. There is a practical responsibility to the polity at stake.

That is especially true in the United States with its “exceptional” electoral system. Even the briefest glance at The Federalist Papers (especially numbers #10 and #51) shows that the system has been rigged against “the great beast” of the poor from the start. Its insistence on coalitions of self-interested “factions” rather than ideological parties, its winner-take-all elections, its undemocratic electoral college, and its voting restrictions create obvious disincentives for any third party. Yet, it can disrupt: Governor George W. Bush won the presidential election of 2000 by taking Florida with less than 600 votes while Ralph Nader, the third party candidate, convinced just under 100,000 (mostly leftists) to cast their ballots for him. Might this have made a difference for the 37 million refugees generated by the Iraq War? Perhaps. Anyway, the lesson is clear: vote for the lesser of the two evils while working for the aims of a radical social movement.

The old slogan from the 1960s – “Don’t vote! It only encourages them!” – was silly even then. “They” need no further encouragement, and Republican strategy is again one of suppressing the vote. In addition, radical social movements tend to benefit from having a more liberal regime in power, while the opposite is true for reactionary movements and more conservative administrations. Each mass-based social movement can exert pressure on its ideologically more acceptable political party. That was brilliantly shown by the Tea Party and, to a somewhat lesser extent, by Occupy Wall Street, and boldly by the followers of Bernie Sanders.

Everyone surely knows the damage Trump has done: to the courts, to the state department, to the intelligence agencies, to the welfare state, to foreign policy from the Levant to Iran, to US relations with Western Europe, to environmental politics, to civil liberties and voting rights, to immigrants, to enlightened political discourse, to race relations, to respect for science and intellectuals, to the quest for economic equality, to civic decency, and to ... Everyone also knows that Joe Biden, whatever his faults, is not “really” the same as Donald Trump. He is not a pathological liar, and he knows the difference between legitimate reporting and “fake news.”

Differences vanish only with the belief that elections are made for saints: Forget the casuistry, and the anger, and the disappointment, and the frustration, and the pseudo-dialectical convolutions. Kant was right in insisting that “he who wills the end wills the means thereto.” If you want Trump out, you need to vote for Biden. It’s as simple as that. And such is the case even in the states that Democrats are sure to win: the size of the electoral victory or defeat can carry symbolic value, especially when the threat of contesting the election is real.

Again, there is no need to surrender the fight for transformative political goals. That is what social movements are for. They can bring to bear the need for greater economic equality, and “more” welfare programs than what Biden might have in mind. They can also raise the demand for radical political change: abolishing the electoral college, setting term limits for judges, expanding voting rights, altering the tax code, taxing the church, and the like. Obviously many such demands are “unrealistic,” but they deserve being raised. None of this has anything to do with voting for the lesser of the two evils, and if this seems contradictory to dogmatists and sectarians, it isn’t. That approach is still the only meaningful path forward.



Stephen Eric Bronner is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University and Co-Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue. His most recent work is The Sovereign (Routledge).

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 Next > End >>

Page 308 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN